Official Church Logo . . .

[LeSellers]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

...

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any lawyer should know that if you don't protect it, you don't own it.

The owner of a trade or service mark, which includes logos, must control, or at least attempt to control its use. It would be a very bad thing were, say, Aaron Shaffov... (whatever) gain the legal right to use the logo, at least in my opinion.

I have spent hundreds of hours with patent and similar lawyers trying to get their permission to use an element of the XxxxxYyyy logo in documents owned by the entity. They were pretty careful about how I used it, although, given it was the company's material, the laws were somewhat more flexible there.

I believe the Church is just being careful about who can advertize himself as being the Church in order to prevent some really bad potential outcomes.

(I doubt not that others have made the same point, but I haven't had time to read the entire topic.)

Lehi

[Analytics]

Still, I hate to say it, but you made the right choice. You don't want to risk the chance of a loss and potential financial ruin.

H.

It does make me wonder what would have happened had I chosen to fight. Would have the church stuck by its guns? Would it have been high-profile? Looking back at it, I bet I could have gotten legal help from the ACLU or some other such organization.

But things worked out all right.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say anything about solid ground or to that effect, what I said is there is not infringement for a private non commercial use, so I am not going to bother the Church Headquarters with such useless inquires they are dealing with delivering humanitarian add to several disaster areas right now, there efforts are best devoted to that no idiotic outhouse lawyer antics.

I'm confident someone there would have the time to willingly respond to your inquiry.

If you feel that you are so correct and I so wrong why not contact them about me and tell us what they tell you?

I'm not the one behaving in violation of a stated and published Church policy. I just think, as a matter of personal integrity, you need to inform the Church of your intention to go on doing so. And I'm content to take the written policy at face value; I don't need further clarification of it. It is you who are trying to convince us that it doesn't mean what it says.

You the one that has there underpants in a bind here not me.

I don't see a problem and I think your full of hot air like all outhouse lawyers.

For the record, I'm not a lawyer at all, outhouse or otherwise. And the issue I've raised here is a separate one from legality. It has to do with personal integrity.

[Mark Beesley]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Why exaclty do you care?

Why is this an issue for you?

What is the controversy that prompted the post?

[Calm]

I will cease and desist when one of three things happen, I am official asked to stop by the Church, counciled by ward or stake leadership to stop, or when every Stake President and Ward Bishop world wide ceases and desists to violate this copyright on a weekly basis.

Until then I leave the outhouse laws to the outhouse lawyers.

So you were lying when you said you agreed to abide by the board guidelines when you joined the board?

From the guidelines under things not to do:

Copying and pasting material and claiming it as your own or posting anything copyrighted

[bluebell]

The logo is prohibited for personal, commercial, or promotional use, and is only allowed on items approved by the Correlation Department. It's in the original post.

H.

I did see that. I just don't know how a church program printed on paper that has the logo already on the back of it could be considered any of those things.

[bluebell]

Well a program is not an official publication of the Church (for all we know right know Bishops from around the world could be destroying the name of the Church via sacrament programs!) neither is is a missionary name tag.

That doesn't mean that the paper used for it did not have the logo approved by the correlation committe (as missionary tags obviously have been).

Are you aware that can get paper made specifically for programs from the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

That doesn't mean that the paper used for it did not have the logo approved by the correlation committe (as missionary tags obviously have been).

Are you aware that can get paper made specifically for programs from the church.

Printed programs for some Church meetings may well have Correlation Department approval. If so, no problem. And my hunch is that a lot of people in the Church aren't aware of the existence of this policy. The problem, of course, is when, after being made aware of it, they choose to ignore it. That amounts to defiance. Not a good thing when it involves the leadership of the Church.

[sethpayne]

I'm not the one behaving in violation of a stated and published Church policy. I just think, as a matter of personal integrity, you need to inform the Church of your intention to go on doing so.

I say LDS Guy informs the Church of his avatar when you contact Disney and inform them of your avatar.

[bluebell]

I say LDS Guy informs the Church of his avatar when you contact Disney and inform them of your avatar.

I don't think Disney will care.

[Scott Lloyd]

I say LDS Guy informs the Church of his avatar when you contact Disney and inform them of your avatar.

I think Daffy belongs to Warner Bros., not Disney.

And I got him from clip art, which, I understand, is allowable. But if I get some authoritative notice that it's not, I'll readily take him down.

[sethpayne]

I think Daffy belongs to Warner Bros., not Disney.

And I got him from clip art, which, I understand, is allowable.

You are right, Warner Bros. My bad.

I'm no lawyer and have no idea what is, and what is not, allowable.

Consig -- would the use of an avatar image fall under "fair use?"

[Minos]

Well your opinion has no weight here since you are not only unqualified vocationally to make the statement but even you were a qualified lawyer you can only make expert opinion of Canadian law not US copyright law.

Remove the logo before you post again.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are right, Warner Bros. My bad.

I'm no lawyer and have no idea what is, and what is not, allowable.

Consig -- would the use of an avatar image fall under "fair use?"

Even if it does, a published directive from Warner Bros. prohibiting the use of Daffy Duck images, even from clip art, would be enough for me to remove the image. I wouldn't go on using it after having been made aware of the directive. Do you see the distinction?

[David T]

LDS Guy doesn't get it.

The Church isn't saying it's illegal, and nobody is threatening a lawsuit.

This has nothing to do with legalities. It's a Church Policy.

Just as nobody will sue you for breaking the Word of Wisdom...the Church still asks that you don't do it. Even though you're at no risk of having a lawyer - "outhouse" or otherwise, on your tail.

[cinepro]

To take an extreme example as an illustration, were the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre "the LDS Church" when they undertook to murder those travelers? I maintain they were not, since they were acting in violation of Church teachings.

I've been to numerous Church functions where Church members were acting in violation of Church teachings. Obviously not to the degree of murder, but I still don't think "acting in violation of Church teachings" alone can classify an event as a non-Church activity when other indicators would indicate that it is.

[oats]

Ooops. This is my softball league team name and I just had the team t-shirts printed with the logo.

[David Bokovoy]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey Brother, remember, it's all part of Joseph's original vision. The Prophet did not want to establish a Church. If people are interested in belonging to a Church, there are plenty of those institutions available (please no one interpret that as an invitation to leave; just pointing out the facts). The Prophet established a United Firm, and as such, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very much a business corporation designed from the beginning to own property, manage resources, and make money for the establishment of Zion and the eradication of poverty. Mormonism is building the kingdom of God on earth. It's funny how some individuals get worked up over the Church acting like a business. Speaking personally, this is one of the aspects that I find most attractive about Mormonism.

For the record, I am in full support of the copy right policy, and the inspired financial building projects underway in Salt Lake City. As a member, I look forward to many more such undertakings in the future.

[kolipoki09]

My limited understanding of copyright law is that they have to prove that you were gaining a commercial benift when using the logo, so I don't think it applies here, though I admit I am no lawyer and could very well be wrong here.

What a fascinating topic! I'm glad this is being discussed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do tutor a Media Law and Ethics class (darn philosophy undergrads anyway).

A person doesn't have to commercially benefit from the use of someone else's intellectual property to be in violation of copyright law. Those using the intellectual property of another without express consent for the use of blogs, avatars, or other material risk a lawsuit. As far as the Church is concerned, I don't see them suing LDSGuy1986. There is a clear distinction between a well-meaning (albeit often misinformed) member of the Church and a for-profit maliciously anti-Mormon organization seeking to harm the Church. If anything, the Church would likely only ask LDSGuy1986 to change his avatar and leave it at that. The Tanners, Hulses, and Robertsons are a very different story.

At a "virulently apostate" Facebook group known as Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, apostates incessantly attacked a member of the LDS Church for using the cover of Rocky Hulse's polemic "When Salt Lake City Calls" as their profile picture, citing that the use of the image was a violation of copyright. This, after the Hulses illegally copied hundreds copyrighted pictures from lds.org and other websites to serve as cannon fodder for their tri-hourly diatribes against the Church.

[cinepro]

This, after the Hulses illegally copied hundreds copyrighted pictures from lds.org and other websites to serve as cannon fodder for their tri-hourly diatribes against the Church.

I'm not familiar with this particular case, but it should be noted that "criticism" is a fair-use.

[sethpayne]

Even if it does, a published directive from Warner Bros. prohibiting the use of Daffy Duck images, even from clip art, would be enough for me to remove the image. I wouldn't go on using it after having been made aware of the directive. Do you see the distinction?

I do see the distinction and fully understand the Church's position. They don't want every Tom, ****, and Harry to represent themselves (purposefully or inadvertently) as being official Church reps.

Every company, Church, or organization needs to protect its IP -- a logo being part of that IP.

Having said that, and assuming Analytics' story to be fully accurate, I do find it a little unsettling that the Church (or any organization for that matter) would threaten lawsuits in a situation where "fair use" applies.

[mfbukowski]

Well a program is not an official publication of the Church (for all we know right know Bishops from around the world could be destroying the name of the Church via sacrament programs!) neither is is a missionary name tag.

Dude, you're outa line.

The bottom line is that serious members abide by manuals published by the church.

Change your avatar- you are acting like a jerk. The logo does not belong to you. That is the bottom line.

[mfbukowski]

what consig did not publish was the phone number to the IP department of the Church, the phone number is in the Handbook, in the same section.

It should be expected then that someone must due their duty and call the number to report the violation.

CHI:

The logotype may not be used as a decorative element or a computer screen saver. Nor may it be used in any personal, commercial, or promotional way, such as on family history books, T-shirts, buttons, or banners. Questions may be directed to:

Intellectual Property Office 50 East North Temple Street, Room 1888 Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0018 Telephone: 1-801-240-3959 or 1-800-453-3860, extension 2-3959 Fax: 1-801-240-1187 E-mail: cor-intellectualproperty@ldschurch.org

So everyone concerned about this, email the church and report it.

[mfbukowski]

I am not falling under any of the about mentioned situations as it has been said, I am an active member of the Church and have never presented any personal opinions as the teachings or doctrine of the Church.

Many here would dispute that. You are not an official spokesperson

[mfbukowski]

We all now that your stake and ward are as helplessly bound to the handbooks and disregard the scriptures as the ancient pharisees were helplessly bound to there rules instead of following the Torah.

Ah the slippery slope begins. We should ignore the handbooks. Check.